This is a follow up thread to the one I previously posted regarding recommendations for a COMPLETE recording of Beethoven's masterpieces (the string quartets) . Since then I have acquired the Alban Berg set and tonight I shall start exploring these works which are unfamiliar to me. Although I pay very little attention to pecking order with many composers when it comes to hearing their works, I find that Beethoven is an exception to this rule- I like to hear how Beethoven "revolutionizes" music taking it from the Classical era and pushing it into the early romantic era (eg. the piano sonatas, symphonies, piano concertos all share these traits). My intent to is to get the most out of these recordings- doubtfull it would happen on first hearing but - here is my proposed listening order:
1) Op.18 No.3
2) Op.18 No.1
3) Op.18 No.2
4) Op.18 No.5
5) Op.18 No.4
6) Op.18 No.6
7) Op.59 No.1
8 ) Op.59 No.2
9) Op.59 No.3
10) Op.74
11) Op.95
12) Op.127
13) Op.132
14) Op.130
15) Op.133
16) Op.131
and finally 17) Op. 135
Questions: Is this pecking order meaningless? or do I stand to gain better understanding of these works by following this systematic listening pattern? What should I look out for?
marvin
How did you come up with the order?
I suggest just starting with the earliest Op. and working forward: Op. 18, #1; #2, #3 etc..
This is how I like to listen to any box set, as I like to hear the evolution of the composers work, at least the first time through.
Quote from: George on July 23, 2007, 06:31:45 AM
How did you come up with the order?
I suggest just starting with the earliest Op. and working forward: Op. 18, #1; #2, #3 etc..
This is how I like to listen to any box set, as I like to hear the evolution of the composers work, at least the first time through.
Hello, George, that is the chronoligical order (based on dates) that Beethoven composed these works. I never really understood why the sequence of 1, 2, 3.... did not correspond to the actual sequence dates of composition.
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on July 23, 2007, 06:36:47 AM
Hello, George, that is the chronoligical order (based on dates) that Beethoven composed these works. I never really understood why the sequence of 1, 2, 3.... did not correspond to the actual sequence dates of composition.
marvin
I've read that he was proudest of #2, that's why it was put first in the Opus.
In my experience, it was easier to enjoy from the beginning the late string quartets. Then I began to explore the earlier ones. But it depends on taste; and it's not sure that listening to them in the composition order will inevitably show you an evolution in all cases. In a same group of compositions (v. gr., op. 18) you will find different problems, and different solutions. The same for the other "groups": I wouldn't say that op. 135 is more complex than op. 130, but it is sure that comparing both will lead you to discover new treasures, and comparing them with earlier groups will certainly show you (in this case it works) an evolution of Beethoven's art.
Beethoven's late string quartets are a formidable example of the struggle of the composers of the late classical period to open new ways for music. Some other examples are almost forgotten because the composers have been neglected for many years: it's the case of Rejcha, with his wind quintets and his bizarre keyboard fugues (among other strange works), or Cherubini with his late vocal works and his group of string quartets.
Quote from: marvinbrown on July 23, 2007, 06:36:47 AM
Hello, George, that is the chronoligical order (based on dates) that Beethoven composed these works.
In that case, it sounds like a splendid idea! :)
Live life on the edge: go for a random ordering .........
You know you want to .........
I started with the Op 18 just sampling tracks and stopping on the one that caught my attention the most. As it happens, it was #4.
Rasumovskys first.
Quote from: hornteacher on July 23, 2007, 07:53:35 AM
I started with the Op 18 just sampling tracks and stopping on the one that caught my attention the most. As it happens, it was #4.
I did something similar and finished up with the following "shorter version" of Beethoven's SQs for a "quick fix":
Op Movement18/2 - 2
18/3 - 2
18/6 - 1
59/1 - 1
59/2 - 2
74 - 3
127 - 1
130 - 4
131 - 2 & 4
132 - 2
133 - all
I see from all your posts that there really is no consesus on this issue...just about everything under the sun was proposed. Two things I found interesting though....listen to what appeals to me the most first and according to D minor be daring (mix things up).....I have decided to do away with the chronological order. I'll start with op.18 no.1 though then jump to some of the middle quartets then a few of the late quartets then back to the middle and so on. To each his own. Let the adventure begin......
marvin
Save the best for last!! op.131, that is. :)
I started with Op 18 (any of them will do) and then moved on to the Razumovsky's. I didn't go any further until I really knew these works very well.
Start with op 74, the first mov is awesome.
Quote from: Mozart on July 23, 2007, 11:53:11 PM
Start with op 74, the first mov is awesome.
Last night I started listened to Op.18 No.1, No.2 and No.3. Of the 3 I found No.3 and No.2 to be the most appealing. Tonight I'll jump pass the last 3 Op.18s (No.4-6) and into Op.74 as you suggest and Op.95 and Op.127. I shall leave Op.131 to the end as per Bonehelm recommendation and see what happens.
marvin
So how did it go?
Quote from: Mozart on July 25, 2007, 05:29:35 AM
So how did it go?
Very well. I responded better to these last 3 (Op.74, 95, and 127) than Op.18. I think I got used to the form and structure of these string quartets after hearing Op.18 which made listening to Op.74 Op.95 and Op.127 easier. You were right, Op.74 "Harp" is wonderfull, especially the slow opening movement. These peices are far more emotional than the first quartets (Op.18 1-3). Tonight I'll finish up the last Op.18 quartets (4-6) and hopefully get to the Op.59 "Rasumovsky", leaving the late quartets for Thrus/Friday. From what I have read "Rasumovsky" is supposed to be one of the major highlights of the string quartets!!!
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on July 25, 2007, 05:44:22 AM
Very well. I responded better to these last 3 (Op.74, 95, and 127) than Op.18. I think I got used to the form and structure of these string quartets after hearing Op.18 which made listening to Op.74 Op.95 and Op.127 easier. You were right, Op.74 "Harp" is wonderfull, especially the slow opening movement. These peices are far more emotional than the first quartets (Op.18 1-3). Tonight I'll finish up the last Op.18 quartets (4-6) and hopefully get to the Op.59 "Rasumovsky", leaving the late quartets for Thrus/Friday. From what I have read "Rasumovsky" is supposed to be one of the major highlights of the string quartets!!!
marvin
You're in for a treat!
Glad to hear you are enjoying your SQ!!! :)
The opus 18 is sublime and somewhat underappreciated due to the latter offerings. That's a shame--they are great works and the perfect introduction to Beethoven's output in this medium.
My set also contains the Opus 29 string quintet, another gem.
Quote from: -abe- on July 25, 2007, 11:06:04 AM
The opus 18 is sublime and somewhat underappreciated due to the latter offerings. That's a shame--they are great works and the perfect introduction to Beethoven's output in this medium.
My set also contains the Opus 29 string quintet, another gem.
Have no fears -abe- I usually relisten to all my cds (I only have about 400) multiple times. I will go back to these early quartets and do another sweep. I am new to these works and to chamber music in general, there is plenty of room for further appreciation of these works.
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on July 25, 2007, 11:11:44 AM
Have no fears -abe- I usually relisten to all my cds (I only have about 400) multiple times. I will go back to these early quartets and do another sweep. I am new to these works and to chamber music in general, there is plenty of room for further appreciation of these works.
marvin
Marvin,
My favorite is the Tokyo, I am hoping Quatour Mosaiques finishes the whole cycle.....
Quote from: George on July 25, 2007, 06:07:51 AM
You're in for a treat!
Glad to hear you are enjoying your SQ!!! :)
Last night I finished Op.18 (4-6), of these 6 was the most enjoyable and I would say my favorite of Op.18 and then I got to Op.59 "Rasumovsky"- and started with No.1, it was SUPERB!!! I loved it so much that I replayed it again and then a third time then went off to bed....never really getting to Rasumovsky No.2 and No.3.....I'm falling behind in my listening schedule....
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on July 26, 2007, 06:58:09 AM
I'm falling behind in my listening schedule....
marvin
Just wait until you get to the lates. . . .
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on July 26, 2007, 07:16:57 AM
Just wait until you get to the lates. . . .
Thanks Larry :)
marvin
I recently went through a Mahler cycle by doing all the first movements, then all the seconds, all the thirds...and so on...I mean, why the hell not, right? :)
Quote from: gmstudio on July 27, 2007, 03:44:25 AM
I recently went through a Mahler cycle by doing all the first movements, then all the seconds, all the thirds...and so on...I mean, why the hell not, right? :)
Oh WOW....though I am not a fan of Mahler I would imagine with Symphonies than can be a bit daunting. Symphonies usually follow a theme.....didn't mixing up the movements cause confusion or lack of understanding of the themes of the symphonies ? As for me, mixing up the listening sequence of Beethoven's String Quartets (each complete of course) has hardly caused any confusion...although I must say again that I listen to them complete never mixing up the various movements of the string quartets as you did with Mahler's symphonies......although now that you mentioned it I am tempted to try....
marvin
Quote from: marvinbrown on July 27, 2007, 07:06:16 AM
didn't mixing up the movements cause confusion or lack of understanding of the themes of the symphonies ?
Believe me, I've both listened to and conducted (some of) them so many times that to spend a week doing it this way didn't cause much "confusion." :) The only time it "bogged down" was when i got to the 8th while doing the 2nd movements. Christ.
I have to tell you though, listening through the whole cycle and ending the whole thing with the 6th movement of the 3rd was sublime.
Quote from: gmstudio on July 27, 2007, 01:51:09 PM
Believe me, I've both listened to and conducted (some of) them so many times that to spend a week doing it this way didn't cause much "confusion." :) The only time it "bogged down" was when i got to the 8th while doing the 2nd movements. Christ.
I have to tell you though, listening through the whole cycle and ending the whole thing with the 6th movement of the 3rd was sublime.
You are a more experienced listener than I am gmstudio and you conduct as well :)!!!! I suppose when music becomes a profession as it is with you there are no limits!!
As for me I just finished listening to the last of the late string quartets this morning before I went off to the record store. I found them to be more complex musically than the early and middle quartets and surprising less "melodic" or "romantic" for lack of better words than the Rasumovsky quartets and the "Harp" Op. 74. I think I'll go back and revisit all of the late quartets by the middle of next week.
marvin
Just start with CD 1 and listen from the beginning all the way through, then go to CD2, and so on. Pay attention to the music itself, not what order they are in on the CD. You waste too much energy that way.
The Alban Bergs are not my favorites, but they are very good, indeed, esp for the early and middle quartets. I suggest the first thing to do after listening all the way through is to get the Yale Quartet set of the Late Quartets, and then you might want to get the complete Smetana Quartet set.
The Opus 18 has always been a mixed bag for me. They are finely crafted quartets of great originality and variety, but the more i listen the more i tend to tire of them. The level of inspiration seems to be somewhat variable and at times they fall into outright mediocrity. The only exception is the fifth quartet, mainly due the transcendental set of variations in the andante, which is a true work of genius.
The Op.59 is the beginning of Beethoven's true greatness in this medium.
As for recordings, 60s Juiliard for early and middle quartets, Talich for middle and late.
I do not know about mediocrity...that word hardly ever applies to Herr Beethoven. But yes the early string quartets Op.18 are a "mixed bag" and in some instances not as GREAT as the middle and late quartets. That being said I really enjoyed No.2, 3, 4 and 6...each of these has fine moments indeed!!
marvin
I have a wacky idea for listening order-- listen to 'em all, and then start with the one you liked the most and start there. :)
I've just snagged a lovely 2nd hand copy of the Suske-Quartet cycle. Evidence of a careful previous owner is a dated listening schedule and I immediately wondered if he'd been listening to them in chronological composition order...but it would seem not, probably just purely random?
Funny. I have had check marks, dates, brief positive/negative expressions and even booklets doubled in bulk because of cut out magazine reviews glued in by former owners but I haven't seen a schedule like that.
FWIW, I think in times when one either buys complete sets or streams music, the original question is not very important. I encountered the late quartets before the other ones as I had taped op.131 (albeit in the Bernstein orchestral version) and op.132 from the radio. I might have heard others before but the first ones I had on disc were op.59/2+3.
I don't think there is an easy piece to start with.
I found and find the late quartets far more accessible than their reputation and more than some of the middle/early ones but of course they are quite long 8except the last one) and have difficult stretches, and 3 quartets that seem rather popular, op.18/4, 59/3 and 74 are not among my favorites. I am not sure if any Beethoven quartet is nearly as popular as e.g. his Kreutzer sonata or Schubert's "Death & Maiden" or some Haydn and Mozart quartets.
I'd probably recommend to start with op.135 as it among the shortest and while the ambiguous first movement is not the easiest to grasp, the remaining 3 seem very accessible to me.
Quote from: DavidW on July 29, 2007, 02:37:15 PMI have a wacky idea for listening order-- listen to 'em all, and then start with the one you liked the most and start there. :)
My post was so colossally stupid that it stopped the thread in its tracks! This isn't the first time, either. ::)
Quote from: Karafan on March 16, 2025, 06:02:11 AMI've just snagged a lovely 2nd hand copy of the Suske-Quartet cycle. Evidence of a careful previous owner is a dated listening schedule and I immediately wondered if he'd been listening to them in chronological composition order...but it would seem not, probably just purely random?
? I think you misread the handwriting. It is in strict order from Op 18 to Op 135, and then after that, the string trios.